Also in the paulinischen Christian Gnosis (Paulus was an acquaintance of the Philo of Alexandrien) with Christ as Anthropos and Anthropus and gentleman of the cosmos is dealt, which seems to Metathron in Old Testament as such and. Likewise with Philo of Alexandrien.
As well as Ezechiel, Henoch and Jesus Sirach as a people son.
Furthermore the holy spirit in the genesis seems as Ruach Elohim.

logos a substantial role plays in the time of the drawing up of the text:

1. in the Stoa

2. with Philo Alexandrinus - partly as characteristic of God apart from the wisdom (sophia), partly as divine shape, even with the designation of mono gene huios theou („only-born son of God “), whereby it is considered also as an influence giver of the later Trinitätsproblematik; also the designation psyche kosmou („soul of the world “, which is taken by Platon) and parakletos („Tröster “, like the Pneuma with Joh.) it selects for logos

3. in some griech. Mysterienkulten as divine natures, particularly in the Orphik beside sophia and the Pneuma

The term sophia (wisdom) comes in the Joh. not forwards. On the other hand are however in alttestamentlichen texts over sophia, hebr. chokma some statements, which refer to their primordial character: It is eternal before the creation and, but: It is creative:

Sirach 1,4 „early one as it all [i.e. sky, earth, sea] is the wisdom creates, from eternity… “
Sirach 1,9 „it created, looked and counted it, it filled over all its works “

Sirach 24,9 „before the time, at the beginning, he has me to create, and in eternity I do not pass “

Sayings 8,30 „as it the foundations of the earth dimension, there was I with him as loving [or: gelibtes child]. I was its joy day after day and played before him all time “

To that extent one can sophia already somehow with logos the Joh. - See author in connection. But the crucial difference is: The johanneische logos is not understood as a creature, but by it everything turned around production:

Joh. 1.3 panta di'autou egeneto…

That it is primordially meant, shows up in

Joh. 17.5 per tou clay/tone kosmon einai „before its world “
and
Joh. 17.24 „because you loved me per kataboles kosmou before foundation of the world “

Now to your questions:

Is the word of God, - as Johannes describes - from the outset with God
is, and/or is the wisdom, which inkarniert in Christ
will to call as God or with God;

First: Also the translation Joh. 1.1 „Vulgata was erat apud deum with God “, (with accusative!), is not completely unproblematic. Lat. apud generally as statically local „with jmd “one used, but not only, but also as „auf/zu jmd. “. Griech. theon (likewise accusative) however the static meaning does not have pro clay/tone, but indicates a direction of motion.

Joh.1.1 must be shown from there actually with „and logos was on God [sports club arranged] “. With dock theos EN ho logos „and God was logos “is expressed from there a internal-divine „directionness toward itself “.

And these now with „by it is creative everything, and outside of its [it must was called correct in such a way] nothing was created “, whereby the absoluteness of this happening is stated, with Joh. 1.14 on the Geschöpflichkeit (griech. sarx „meat “) turned: „and logos sarx became and among us its tent impacted “.

the question results from the wording in the case of Johannes, in particular
the Greek wording, which permits, God in the eternity
as with the wisdom, thus not only a wise nature,
separate evenly with a nature wisdom at its side to present.

That would johanneisch be genuin, - up to the fact that logos „wisdom “is not, but completely different Begriffsextension it has (otherwise it would be not e.g. into the Orphik (male) a divinity beside (female) the divinity sophia. And it comes nevertheless into the proximity „wisdom “- of the statements (chokma) into „sayings “and „Sirach “. Only with the substantial difference that chokma, although eternal, a creature is. The johanneische logos is however not creature.

That would result in then a new view of the creator: If that
Creator in the eternity someone with itself has, as the eternal
, Then he has wisdom not necessarily to create the creation,
in order to be able to love something or someone, but the wisdom
already makes possible for it relationship in the other world without this life;
if one wants to hold on the Monotheismus strictly, one must
then however with the fact it counts that the wisdom in that
Eternity from God comes out, from it is and it in
, but evenly nevertheless not a characteristic is alike to everything
God, but an independently existing wisdom. Nevertheless
it must have come out from it before the time.

You see: You show thereby accurately the statements of „sayings “and „Sirach “. The author of the Joh. but love speaks of one „, before the world was “, not from coming out. That of mono gene theou, „the only one of God “(„the only one “are called also can - also something, which will gladly suppress) refers johanneisch to the meat-nascent logos. Otherwise it would have had to be called „the eternal-witnessed “.

Thus: To which the experts tend, to the acceptance of a wisdom
with God or for the acceptance of a creator God, without
Creation alone and lonely would be.

The latter does not follow at all from the preceding. The johanneische God term does not contain evenly one „of isolation “. „The lonely God “before the creation is a Theologoumenon, which comes rather different to eastern Gods: It is stated e.g. by the Egyptian RA, which waives its isolation, by letting the world come out from its seed.

Also in the Neuplatonismus, more exactly said with Plotinus, is similar: Plotin leads with yours (Unum) the first Absolutheitsbegriff into philosophy (then also to the Jewish-Christian God one transfers). And also of this Unum Plotin in more metaphorical says talks that it is „its even weary “and from there „pours “(evenly „the Emanation “) and brings the low its levels out.